The Vietnam Syndrome

[Mojotronica]

George Bush the Elder once said that America must get past the "Vietnam Syndrome" -- the general feeling amongst Americans that loss of troops on the scale of Vietnam, Korea and most previous wars is unacceptable.

Are we over the Vietnam Syndrome? Can we stomach loss of troops on a pre-1975 scale? If not, what would it take to get Americans behind an action that would surely cost many lives?

 

[Benderino]

No, we certainly aren't. There are too many hippies and children of hippies to go around. Its worse now, I think. It would take either a nuclear attack against Americans or an invasion of America...otherwise, it will never be the same again. That's the reason we can't commit to anything...the people don't want to. Since WW2, we haven't had such a great threat to us, (mind, the Cold War was, but it wasn't direct), so we were willing to lose lives for freedom. The people don't see that anymore in these modern wars. They don't see us fighting for our freedom. These days, atleast, I see it as we are fighting for somebody else's freedom, which is enough for me, but not for most, I guess.

 

[Ohwell]

I've never had the "Vietnam Syndrome" but others will never get rid of it.

Benderino: It isn't just the "hippies"that have the vietnam syndrome, its basically everyone. There is huge news stories for a SINGLE soldier killed.

 

[Benderino]

I know I know, I was just kidding around about that part.

 

[cgannon64]

I think the Vietnam Syndrome is a healthy one. I also think that it is specific to wars that don't have a great defined purpose. I thinkn today - and even in the 70s - Americans would have supported a war like WWII, where the enemy was clearly evil and the war meant saving our Allies from certain destruction.

I think the Vietname Syndrome would be very good for the country today. If we start getting casualties on the scale of Vietnam for a war like Iraq, public dissent will begin to rise greatly. And I think that is a perfectly healthy thing for the country.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I think the Vietnam Syndrome is a healthy one. I also think that it is specific to wars that don't have a great defined purpose. I thinkn today - and even in the 70s - Americans would have supported a war like WWII, where the enemy was clearly evil and the war meant saving our Allies from certain destruction.

I think the Vietname Syndrome would be very good for the country today. If we start getting casualties on the scale of Vietnam for a war like Iraq, public dissent will begin to rise greatly. And I think that is a perfectly healthy thing for the country.

Ditto.

But then again, most people (probably me included) just don't get "revved up" for a war that doesn't really benefit themselves, and instead only benefits another country, if we have to suffer somewhat (more than just a few casualties and a couple billion dollars). Most people put our lives ("our" as in the country that you live in) above other people's lives. It's really just a question of opinion as to whether or not a country should only be worried about itself, and let others take care of themselves, or whether strong countries like the US should help out weaker ones. But of course if the costs of a war don't match the benefits of anyone, it's not worthwhile, and the general public usually realizes that, which is of course a good thing.

 

[Tsukemono5]

I fully agree with Benderine. Fighting for someone else's freedom, to me, is a higher cause than our own. But Vietnam was still a waste of troops (if you go to the Lyrics thread, on the last page, there's a song about it that I put there).
cgannon64, we didn't support WWII. Or WWI for that matter. Not until we were attacked. WWI it was the torpedoing of the Lusitania, for WWII it was Pearl Harbor. This country is a selfish one.

One a more positive note, it's a prime example of War Weariness . Just to stay on topic with the rest of the site.

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by Tsukemono5
cgannon64, we didn't support WWII. Or WWI for that matter. Not until we were attacked. WWI it was the torpedoing of the Lusitania, for WWII it was Pearl Harbor. This country is a selfish one.

I'm not sure about WW1, but in WW2 we were definetly supporting the war. Britain wouldn't have been around by 1942 if not for the convoys from the US and Canada. Also things like the "lend-lease" program to GB and Russia. We had the Eagle squadrons in GB, the Flying Tigers in China (not official US govt, granted, but US support). It just took Pearl Harbor (and the Lusitania in WW1) to shock the public into going to war.

The "Vietnam Syndrome" is good in some ways.. we should support and honor those who are willing to (and do) die for their country. But I don't know what will happen when we have another major war...

 

[Immortal]

Britain wouldn't have been around by 1942 if not for the convoys from the US and Canada.

Canada gave a lot more then convoys my friend.

 

[Benderino]

I think what Tsukemono5 meant is that we the people of the US didn't support war against the Axis powers until Pearl Harbor, however, our government did give support to the Allies by assisting with logistics and such.

 

[Tsukemono5]

Exactly. Thanks Benderino. While you're at it, Charles Lindenberg (sp?) got on the radios spewing Nazism. He was a national hero. It would have been like Michael Jordan (pre-suckage) getting on TV and espousing the benefits of being a fanatic, fundamentalist Muslim.
Same case in WWI. We didn't want to enter the war until we were dragged in. So the US has always dragged its heels on war. But for a good cause, that should stop.

 

[Neomega]

Who says WW I was a good cause? I don't believe it was, and the resulting League of Nations made a bigger mess.

And I am not the only one who thinks WW I was a waste, read Woodrow Wilson's memoirs. By the time he was done trying to secure a lasting peace in Europe, he was furiopus with the French and the British, and European politics in general.

 

[Greadius]

Which makes Wilson a true American

The way modern war is fought and the equipment and tactics we have available should make Vietnam-style casualties entirely unthinkable because it means a screw up of an epic scale.

The days of marching troops with a rifle towards objectives is obsolete. There was a time when the equipment was worth more than the man; now, the only thing that is unacceptable to lose is the man.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Neomega
Who says WW I was a good cause? I don't believe it was, and the resulting League of Nations made a bigger mess.

And I am not the only one who thinks WW I was a waste, read Woodrow Wilson's memoirs. By the time he was done trying to secure a lasting peace in Europe, he was furiopus with the French and the British, and European politics in general.

Are you referring to the war itself, or American involvement?

Sure, the war was useless, few will argue against that, however, by America getting involved, that stopped a war that could have killed millions more and gone on for ten more years. We saved more lives than anything else by jumping right in.

 

[Sh3kel]

Originally posted by Greadius

The days of marching troops with a rifle towards objectives is obsolete. There was a time when the equipment was worth more than the man; now, the only thing that is unacceptable to lose is the man.

Unless, and seeing as this is based in fact due to several incidents in Iraq, Israel and basically everywhere else islamo-facists reign and not racist fiction, you're a radical muslim. At which point your life is worth the least.

WW2 was fought in part due to a clash of ideologies - the west was generally pacifist, which regarded war as the worst thing possible. Along come Germany and Italy which regard war as the best thing to happen to mankind. Clash of the civilizations? Not really. The west is frantically trying to avoid war, the Germans are frantically trying to start one, and about 6 years into this ridiculous political game, the germans find out it takes only one side to start a war and wipe out Poland. Currently, the west regards human life as the most important thing on the face of the universe. Radical Islam regards human life as the cheapest and most effective weapon. If we're getting ready to capitulate here and give in to the Islamic world, this is fine, but if we're actually going to get somewhere in our war against terrorism, casualties shouldn't be a factor. They're certainly not a factor on their side, which at the current status quo, gives them a HUGE advantage on us.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

The "Vietnam syndrome" doesn't happen because we remember Vietnam, it happens because peoples' children come home dead. And when enough of them do, the price becomes to high. When the price on enough people was too high to stop alleged communists from controlling a jungle backwater, they voted it down. Likewise, should the price of grabbing contracts for Halliburton become too high on enough families, further ME expansionism would be voted down.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

@sh3kel- trust me, no movement survives where it only uses people as cannon fodder. Not even radical Islam (and someday I'd really like to see a statistic of how many have suicided themselves in the name of Islam since 1900 compared to a statistic of how many Muslims there have been since 1900 and compared to how many Muslims have been killed by non Muslims since then...)

 

[Greadius]

Something about the formation of Islam and the Ummah, it is completely unacceptable for the most murderous Islamists that a fellow Muslim dies at the hands of anyone BUT another Muslim. When its a Muslim doing the killing its the same old...

I mean, the greatest butcher of Muslims in the 20th century had half of the Islamic world rooting for him but a Palestinian child that accidentally dies in an Israeli rocket attack is a cause for jihad.

 

[Pongui]

That's it, Mr. Bush. Americans need to get over this "peace disorder", need to be healed of that "gore aversion disease".

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by Benderino


Are you referring to the war itself, or American involvement?

Sure, the war was useless, few will argue against that, however, by America getting involved, that stopped a war that could have killed millions more and gone on for ten more years. We saved more lives than anything else by jumping right in.

Or did we just help one of the evil sides of the war (Britain and France) oppress another state, Germany, which in the end resulted in tens of millions of lives lost... a la WW II, not to mention 256,000 more Americans.